Transcript NEOLITHIZATION OF THE BALKANS IN THE CONTEXT OF

2005 London Neolithic Seminar
NEOLITHIZATION OF THE
BALKANS IN THE
CONTEXT OF
ANTHROPOLOGY OF
EVERYDAYNESS
Lolita Nikolova*
*University of Utah, Salt Lake Community
College and International Institute of
Anthropology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, &
*Prehistory Foundation, Sofia-Karlovo,
Bulgaria
• I would like to sincerely thank the organizers of
this wonderful meeting and especially Michela
Spataro for the opportunity to present my most
recent insights into the topic of earlier Balkan
Neolithic and development of the social
reproduction strategies in context of Anthropology
of Everydayness
Acknowledgments
I miss
you
badly
today!
Lolita
Neolithization and Anthropology of Everydayness
are two crucial topics in the modern
anthropological historiography profoundly
incorporated in studying Balkan Prehistory:
 Ruth Tringham (1995) and different
models of Balkan Neolithization.
Cauvin’s (2000) models
Social actor theory
According to my theoretical and methodological
framework,
 essential today is to construct explanation models for
earlier Neolithic development which specify the certain
social strategy of local communities.
The last make the social biography of the ancient
population not a subject and victim of ecological or/and
external not directed circumstances but active social
actors with clear and well-defined social reproduction
strategies.
Neolithization
From those theoretical and methodological
perspectives we can define Neolithization:
Under Neolithization we understand a process
of establishment of early complex sedentary and
semi-sedentary societies, in particular in the
Balkans.
Complexity
Infrastructure
Social structure
Superstructure
In archaeological terms the Neolithization of the Balkans equals the emergence
and early development of the pottery society (see Spataro M., 2005)
Krajnitsi is a one of the few Balkan
prehistoric settlements where was
documented overlapping of the
monochrome by early white painted
pottery in the Balkans while the newly
published sites like Kovachevo
(Lichardus-Itten M. et al. 2000), Vaksevo
(Chokhadzhiev 2001) and Donja
Branjevina (Karmanski 2005) clearly
indicate:
1. A long process of evolution of the white painted
style
2. Intensive long-distance contacts – results of
exchange or barriers of which were semisedentary communities
Krajnitsi (Southwest Bulgaria, after
Chokhadzhiev M.)
Donja Branjevina
(after Karmanski
2005)
Thrace and Beginning of Neolithic
Despite the discussion on the opportunity for
existing a monochrome stage, the situation in
Upper Thrace remains unclear. Upper Thrace in the
triangle between Hoga Cesme – Koprivets Krajnitsi and we can propose a communication
routes and possible semi-mobile (non-tell) small
communities while the white-painted was not only
cultural bur also a social indicator of early complex
society (Nikolova, in press). For the time being,
Upper Thrace can be integrated into common
cultural Balkan Neolithic models just since the
period of vast distribution of the white painted
pottery (Early Neolithic II according to my
periodization system).
Dubene-Pishtikova
mogila (Karlovo valley,
Upper Thrace)
Thrace and Beginning of Neolithic
Triangle model
Koprivets
White and blue
– archaeological
model that excludes
Thrace from Early
Neolithic I
communication
system (missing
THRACE
evidence)
Krajnitsi
(unlikely)
Orange, blue
and white –
Hoga
Cesme
Thrace is a part of the
Early Neolithic I
Balkan
communication and
social system
Complex society
The term “complex society” (Nikolova 2004):
(1) Varies within the stages of its development
(2) It varies in the social strategies it has adopted for the
reinforcement of social hierarchy or for the establishment of
equality between the different social strata. In other words, the
complex society has ambivalent functions.
(3) Complex societies are characterized by heterogeneity and
cultural diversity, or the so-called subcultures (Rosman & Rubel
2001:26). Accordingly, the heterogeneity of culture is one of the
criteria for social complexity.
Archaeological records
The archaeological record base for earlier Neolithic
social reproduction includes a variety of records
related to:
1. Household and social archaeology
2. Economic archaeology
3. Mortuary archaeology
4. Cognitive or symbolic archaeology.
Household archaeology
The comparative analysis infers (Nikolova,
in print) that there were specific village
strategies within earlier Neolithic household
and community social organization that vary
from region to region and even from village
to village on one and the same site
(e.g. Donja Branjevina, Kovachevo, Nea Nikomedia, Vaksevo, Karanovo,
Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila, Rakitovo, Chavdarova Cheshma, Samovodene,
Gradeshnitsa, etc.)
Household archaeology
Unfortunately, not every even well-published record
from settlement can be used for interpretation of
social strategies. From the rich Balkan data-base, in
our research we were able to offer possibly that the
household continuity presented in the architecture of
some excavated areas on Karanovo tell and Rakitovo
(Nikolova, in print). As a whole, the problem is
complicated, and I shall limit to the conclusions about
recently published excavations at Rakitovo.
Household archaeology
The spatial organization of buildings from
Rakivoto (excavations of Anna Raduncheva and
team) deduces, that they were specific
principals based most probably on kinship
and/or social-religious relationship (Nikolova, in
print). The grouping of the houses (similar to on
the Karanovo tell) can specify household
complexes or interrelated households. One of
the strongest arguments for interrelation
between architecture and social function is the
fact that only one building in the earliest village
had various orientation (N-S), and the houses
had been constructed close to each other.
Rakitovo
Household archaeology
Anna Raduncheva has recently stated a question of possible trade
centers in Thrace based on the data from Chavdarova Cheshma
near Simeonovgrad. The critical analysis of the published
information (see the arguments in Nikolova, in print) does not allow
us to accept the interpretation, but the excavations are worth in
respect of analyzing the ethnographic peculiarities of the earlier
Neolithic in Thrace.
As the whole, the settlements represent different local
models of social organization of the Neolithic communities which in
turn specify to the strong social organization within the limits of the
complex society.
Research in depth: village burials
Another my case study researching Balkan Neolithic
are village mortuary practices (Nikolova 2002, 2004 &
2005).
The comparative analysis of the different regional
burial pattern has been introduced that shows not
only regional and chronological peculiarities but
opportunities for retrospective analysis - using the
data of the later Neolithic to explain the genesis of the
certain cultural traits in earlier Neolithic.
Kazanluk tel
For instance, the spatial analysis of the burials from Kazanlak Tell (Nikolova 2004, data
from Bacvarov 2003) demonstrates a specific spatial and temporal development in the
mortuary practices on that tell in the upper Tundzha valley:
(1) The tradition of child burials is manifested even in the earliest settlement, though this
practice can be considered an exception in the local burial practices.
(2)
It was sustained until the beginning of the Late Neolithic when, a nest cemetery was
probably formed in a specific part of the settlement. This moment in the history of the
settlement leads to the hypothesis that at certain times a cemetery might be formed in
part of the settlement where the burials might even have the meaning and the function of
extramural burial grounds.
(3) If the above interpretation is correct, it supports the idea that extramural cemeteries in
Neolithic Thrace might be related to household traditions, that they were small-scale,
possibly a subject to destruction and therefore hard to document.
Earlier Neolithic cemeteries
Karanovo tell’s burial records also include a pit of
human bones (Buchvarov 2003:58), which was
interpreted as possible secondary burial of bones
from an extramural necropolis or even from
original settlement burials (Nikolova 2004).
Early Complex Society in the Balkans
In particular, child burials within the settlements represent an important aspect of the social
strategies for reproduction:
(1) One possible explanation of their popularity was the reinforcement of the social concern for
the children as a strategy for the unification of the household and the community, as well as
the care for both mother and child (e.g. the two double burials from Karanovo and
Kazanlak).
(2) It is worth to mention the numerous child burials in Ilipinar IX (Roodenberg 1995).
(3) We need plenty of additional contextual data to clarify the important issue of household, clan
and all-village ritual practices and the relationship of settlement burials to these three levels
of social interaction.
But generally speaking, their inclusion in the social strategy of the community
can be interpreted as an aspect of the constitution of the complex societies
in the Balkans.
Symbolism, enculturation and genealogy
Gradeshnitsa
triple burial
The performance of mortuary rituals within the settlements
included some common aspects of the symbolism of the body,
death, the home, the household, etc. But the exceptional
character of settlement burials leads to the general conclusion
that they had a specific social and symbolic significance.
We can even assume that some of them functioned as a metonymy of a
certain social group and/or as a necessary element in the ritual and social
practices associated with the symbolic binary oppositions life/death,
pure/impure, us/them, mortal/immortal, in the legitimating of certain social norms
etc. (Nikolova 2004).
In other words, during the Neolithic village burials were one of the active
social strategies in the enculturation as transmission of genealogical
information from generation to generation and reproducing kinship
connections.
Village burials
Life in the prehistoric settlement required social
practices for the daily constitution and affirmation
of the various social entities and relationships.
The burials within the prehistoric village can be
included in this system of social and symbolic
practices that could be related both to periods of
stabilization and crises of the household or other
social entities.
Social elite and early complex society
The earliest levels of Early Neolithic settlements in Thrace, for
instance, demonstrate flourishing culture with extensive contacts and
at the same time local peculiarities – diversity in the access to the
resources, specific network for long-distant exchange of objects (e.g.
obsidian knife from Kliment-Banyata).
We can presume the establishment of the early complex society was
also a stage of development of the social hierarchy, stratification and
wealth demonstrated by rich households like the one from Sofia-Slatina.
Hierarchy and Stratification
 Theoretically it is supposed, that hierarchy and stratification are results
of restriction of access to resources (Nikolova, in print).
 However, in contrast to the metal epochs, in the earlier Neolithic
(1) the access to the subsistence economy resources presumably was
regulated although based on common solidarity, and
(2) the restriction was more probably with respect to the prestige items
which were kept as a capital and possibly inherited.
We believe that the principal of solidarity dominated at level of
everyday social practices strengthened by reproducing specific
cultural pattern and strong interregional contacts. A specific
argument in our thesis are the data from the small objects
(Nikolova, in print).
Symbolic archaeology and complex society
Slatina (after V. Nikolov); Banya,Karlovo (after L. Nikolova) and Vaksevo (after S. Chokhadzhiev)
Dogon
Mask
Interregional Balkan contacts
While macro-cultural research Balkan-Anatolian is
traditional, a detailed interregional analysis of the Balkan
contacts during earlier Neolithic are not very popular in the
contemporary historiography.
Studying the earlier Neolithic
figurines from the Central Balkans
as a source for possible common
rituals and interaction, recently we
have added a new analogy to the
item from from Banya, Karlovo, that
comes from Vaksevo.
Interregional Balkan contacts
Our understanding is that the small objects (some
perishable) had a very essential function in the process of
the enculturation and development of the complex society
in Balkan Neolithic.
Interregional Balkan contacts
Heiner Schwarzberg (2005) has discussed in details the
earlier Neolithic tripod and polypod vessels and concluded
the tripods from Thrace do not have precise analogies in
Anatolia that clearly confirms our idea:
Settling on one place the community
attempted to create and reproduce culture
that served the most stable and successful
social strategies. The Balkan communities
develop their own symbolic storage of
cultural pattern that was transmitted from
generation to generation with still not well
investigated social and cultural mechanics.
Problems
From an archaeological point of you, the study of Neolithic
cultures in the Balkans at the level of archaeological cultures
does not create the optimal opportunity to define any
'subcultures', as that would require a detailed research of the
differences and similarities between the unearthed households,
whereas archaeological culture presents an integral material
culture without a visible social hierarchy or visible differences.
An additional problem is posed by the fact that in early
complex societies the differences between the social strata
and the social groups are hardly reflected in the
archaeologized material culture.
Conclusions
Neolithization as a process of development of early sedentary and semisedentary complex society was the most successful social strategies for
the Balkan communities since:
 In later 7th and early 6th millennia cal BCE the Balkans had favorable
climatic and geographical preconditions for development of agriculture
as the basic subsistence economy.
 The permanent settlements required a specific social organization in
which the principal of solidarity interacted with increasing social
stratification among the households and differences between villages.
 The spatial organization of the villages at least in some cases can be
correlated with possible development of the household and the
household complexes.
Conclusions




The household developed individual social strategies for reproduction
including village burials. The last in some cases most probably related to
common village rituals as well.
The fact that settlement burials constitute an exception gives us reason
to think that they represent a specific element in the establishment of
early complex social structures as a social strategy of the household
(predominantly), which could explain the variations of the ritual and its
specificities within the different settlements and different everyday social
practices.
Small “ritual” (non-utilitarian) objects were possibly used in the everyday
life as an enculturation means connecting the generations and intercommunities, although being used in inner- and interregional common
rituals.
While the everyday pottery specify the household as an individual social
unit and a member of the communities, the common regional ceramic
style was a strong cultural tool for cultural cohesion and development of
the principals of solidarity.
Contact
If you have any questions and for references
please contact:
Lolita Nikolova, Ph.D., International Institute of
Anthropology, 29 S State Street #206, Salt
Lake City, Utah
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: (801) 363 3123
THANK YOU